The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to the first Christians

[Shad]

Social and cultural anthropology, to place them in context.

Writing styles such as Aristotle's teachings in rhetorical prose and Greek novels.

Archeology which dictates anthropology.

Mythology to know about preexisting beliefs and patterns.


And the ability to be honest about the grey areas where educated guesses are as good as it gets.

My question was not intended to solicit a response you provided. It was more to point out how arbitrary these fields become when it comes to the religion.

 

[Shad]

I'm not sure about this idea. There's not a hint anywhere that Paul is not a Jew, and a lot of things wouldn't make sense if he weren't.

- He says in more than one genuine epistle that he's a Jew
- He displays a Jewish education
- Certain events described in the letters - identifying with the Jews and not Gentiles

Of course all of this could be written by a proselyte, but only if we dismiss Paul's word about who he was.

And we must consider that Paul's epistles indicate that he had disagreements with a variety of people/groups and none of these groups argued that Paul was not a Jew. They challenged his apostleship, his teachings concerning grace, his practices related to diet and circumcision, theology of baptism, theology of work, and so on. These groups attacked various points of his character and practice: he never met Jesus, he was not a good speaker, he didn't have a letter of introduction from other churches, they derided him for being poor, and more. But none of them challenged his claim to be Jewish.

I think one of the lines of thought behind Paul not being a Jew is based on James being tied to a Jewish faction before the Jewish Revolt in 66-70 AD. I do not remember where I read it but it was published by some fringe author a number of years ago. Anyways this link was proposed and developed into a different sect. Gentile-Christians and Jewish-Christians were clearly separated. The later is spun into a strictly Jewish version of Christianity in which all previous Jewish laws and customs were maintain. Similar to those denomination which still follow the previous covenant with the new convent as an addition rather then a suspension of the old.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think one of the lines of thought behind Paul not being a Jew is based on James being tied to a Jewish faction before the Jewish Revolt in 66-70 AD. I do not remember where I read it but it was published by some fringe author a number of years ago. Anyways this link was proposed and developed into a different sect. Gentile-Christians and Jewish-Christians were clearly separated. The later is spun into a strictly Jewish version of Christianity in which all previous Jewish laws and customs were maintain. Similar to those denomination which still follow the previous covenant with the new convent as an addition rather then a suspension of the old.

That isn't evidence that Paul was not a Jew. I agree - obviously - that early Christianity split into many sects. But that is not evidence of Paul's Jewishness one way or the other.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Citizenship does not mean he was rich and I never implied this. I hope you realize that there were tens of thousands of poor Romans with Rome itself. I clearly stated citizenship granted certain rights not wealth. This is your issue you are projecting on to me and frankly using it to create a strawman. Also you clearly never read the verse I posted as it was about him being a Jew not a Roman citizen. My sources on Roman citizenship which in respond to Outhouse comment in which I used "only" as the parameter in which one gains citizenship. Again you create another strawman which you can knockdown not something I said.

Again I was answering a question. If the answer was abundantly obvious there would of never been a question for me to answer in the first place.

My judgement of your competency is based on your inability to follow the line of thought, what I posted, your strawman arguments and the childish games you played.

*sigh*

 

[Shad]

That isn't evidence that Paul was not a Jew. I agree - obviously - that early Christianity split into many sects. But that is not evidence of Paul's Jewishness one way or the other.

Never said it was. I am just mentioning a book I read which is similar to the OP video but went goes into further detail. I think Robert Eisenman wrote it or at least he is used as a basis for Paul being the anti-Christ or a Roman agent.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Never said it was. I am just mentioning a book I read which is similar to the OP video but went goes into further detail. I think Robert Eisenman wrote it or at least he is used as a basis for Paul being the anti-Christ or a Roman agent.

You'll notice, of course, that I didn't say that you did.

I'll look up Eisenman. I've never read seen it (anti-Christ or a Roman agent) - anywhere. Not even the sensationalists have been there. But they are distracted by other insignificant things.

It probably doesn't matter because whatever argument that can lead to such a silly conclusion must first dismiss everything written by and about Paul for hundreds of years -- until the first moron said that Paul was a anti-Christ or a Roman agent -- whenever that was.

In any case, the argument doesn't exist in scholarship today.

 

[sojourner]

I will be careful to follow your useful and relevant instructions.

You shall have no bologna.

Cruelty to animals is discouraged. Just FYII...


:badger:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Cruelty to animals is discouraged. Just FYII...


:badger:

Don't worry they are already dead.

 

[sojourner]

I guess you know nothing about Rome since you provide no counter-argument. No problem, it happens when people are out of their depth talking about something which they are completely ignorant about.

:thud: :foot::foot::foot::foot::foot::foot: :drunk:

 

[sojourner]

How do you even know Paul was a jew?


How do you know exactly what class Paul might have been?


Provide sources.

How dare you stifle their creativity?!

 

[sojourner]

Read your own holy book more often.

I... Ohhhhh, HAAAhahahahahahahahahahaha ... <gasp>

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa.... <weeps, wipes eyes>

Haaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

I can't stand it; I'm folding up in the floor! Oh, you're killing me!


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

I... Oh!... Hoo! <takes deep breath, wipes brow>

 

[sojourner]

You made a naked assertion. Assertions are not arguments. And I did not disagree with you - you were crashing a conversation, making a completely inane and obvious assertion that related in no way to the conversation OR the thread topic.

All of these idiotic posts about my competency seem motivated by the fact that you can post the most elementary facts about the Roman Empire and Paul.

Congratulations. Whether or not you will actually contribute to the conversation - or at least participate in it - remains to be seen.

Don't hold your breath...

 

[sojourner]

Yes I know this. However angellous provides neither rebuttal nor a counter-argument. Just immature childish responses which address nothing I have said.

So far, your assertions haven't merited serious rebuttal.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Never said it was. I am just mentioning a book I read which is similar to the OP video but went goes into further detail. I think Robert Eisenman wrote it or at least he is used as a basis for Paul being the anti-Christ or a Roman agent.

I looked up Eisenman. His website is actually pretty informative. He's pretty far out in left field in his social interpretation of earliest Christianity. Most NT scholars would hesitate to use modern terms like 'revolutionaries against Rome' for Jesus followers because they did not self-identify themselves as such and it runs against the grain of teachings like the kingdom of God/heaven which are focused on the afterlife and not the present.

In any case, Eisenman may be a fist class DSS scholar, but the connections that he makes to the NT force the interpreter to accept a whole galaxy of interpretative assumptions and use only that galaxy to navigate the connections.

There's always one or two scholars out there on the edge.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I... Ohhhhh, HAAAhahahahahahahahahahaha ... <gasp>

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa.... <weeps, wipes eyes>

Haaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

I can't stand it; I'm folding up in the floor! Oh, you're killing me!


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

I... Oh!... Hoo! <takes deep breath, wipes brow>

haha that was my reaction too. haha

 

[Tabb]

Well, you can find many Jews who were Roman citizens or citizens of cities (or both sometimes).

This does mean that they were receiving favors from Rome to do this or that.

There is a pattern on this forum by some to go petty on postings that they disagree with. Rather than presenting a cogent argument with an opposing view, the goal becomes to discredit anything that's said in an argument along with the poster. A system of taking a complete thought and breaking it down to its components and picking apart weaknesses in one of the components. Totally
ignoring the point being made by the poster.

I'm not the first whoever questioned the veracity of Paul. Here's a character that murdered people who followed the Messiah, then he has a sudden change of mind on the road to Damascus and decides he's now a follower, changes his name and then precedes to write more than half of the new testament. On top of all this he's somehow a Roman citizen. Seriously you can't make this stuff up.

Now you as a staff member don't want to argue about any of this. What sticks in your claw is the accusation that he may of been compensated in some way by the Romans. Not that he's a murderer but that he may of taken a bribe or two. You don't want to discuss his body count of the murders he committed against his own people but how much did he receive. Not even the fact that someone of questionable character wrote half of the new book.

Like they say the devil is in the details.

 

[Shad]

I looked up Eisenman. His website is actually pretty informative. He's pretty far out in left field in his social interpretation of earliest Christianity. Most NT scholars would hesitate to use modern terms like 'revolutionaries against Rome' for Jesus followers because they did not self-identify themselves as such and it runs against the grain of teachings like the kingdom of God/heaven which are focused on the afterlife and not the present.

In any case, Eisenman may be a fist class DSS scholar, but the connections that he makes to the NT force the interpreter to accept a whole galaxy of interpretative assumptions and use only that galaxy to navigate the connections.

There's always one or two scholars out there on the edge.

There are issues with his links various religious factions as well.

So do you even entertain the idea Paul being from Tarsus is at all historical?

 

[Shad]

So far, your assertions haven't merited serious rebuttal.

So you do not think Paul was once a Jew, Roman Citizen or both?

Keep in mind I am not an advocate of the OP. I am entertain ideas and speculating.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is a pattern on this forum by some to go petty on postings that they disagree with. Rather than presenting a cogent argument with an opposing view, the goal becomes to discredit anything that's said in an argument along with the poster. A system of taking a complete thought and breaking it down to its components and picking apart weaknesses in one of the components. Totally
ignoring the point being made by the poster.

I'm not the first whoever questioned the veracity of Paul. Here's a character that murdered people who followed the Messiah, then he has a sudden change of mind on the road to Damascus and decides he's now a follower, changes his name and then precedes to write more than half of the new testament. On top of all this he's somehow a Roman citizen. Seriously you can't make this stuff up.

Now you as a staff member don't want to argue about any of this. What sticks in your claw is the accusation that he may of been compensated in some way by the Romans. Not that he's a murderer but that he may of taken a bribe or two. You don't want to discuss his body count of the murders he committed against his own people but how much did he receive. Not even the fact that someone of questionable character wrote half of the new book.

Like they say the devil is in the details.

You do realize that this is a thread with a topic, right?

I made a few points against the idea that Paul was on Rome's payroll, the author amended his opinion to 'favors' and I stated that my points were still valid. And they are.

The assertion that Paul was in any way paid by Rome flies in the face of basic Roman custom and the author couldn't situate it within any historical framework.

Then you pop in with irrelevant crap about citizenship. And take the thread off topic with baseless comments about me personally based on my reaction to the irrelevant crap you posted.

 

[sojourner]

So you do not think Paul was once a Jew, Roman Citizen or both?

Keep in mind I am not an advocate of the OP. I am entertain ideas and speculating.

I think there was a historical figure named Paul who wrote epistles, started churches in Gentile territory and acted as a church authority. I think a lot of the details outlined in Acts are purely fiction, conjured to make for a good story.

Remember: Ancient history is a far different animal from modern history. Modern history concerns itself with preservation of facts and minutae. Ancient history concerns itself much less with facts and far more with story. Ancient history is concerned with large movements in history, and is not above making up details to illustrate those large movements. Luke-Acts is about the known world, and how it changed with the coming and aftermath of Jesus. Details of Paul have been fabricated or enhanced in order to "make the story better.